Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764700AbYBZXC4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:02:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755860AbYBZXCr (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:02:47 -0500 Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:4369 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754697AbYBZXCq (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:02:46 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:47:57 -0500 From: "John W. Linville" To: Alexey Zaytsev Cc: Michael Buesch , Ingo Molnar , Alexey Zaytsev , Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: bcm43xx regression in 2.6.24 (with patch) Message-ID: <20080226224757.GB3100@tuxdriver.com> References: <47BEAF3B.3080809@protei.ru> <20080226202044.GE3013@tuxdriver.com> <200802262304.39882.mb@bu3sch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1384 Lines: 33 On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 01:12:32AM +0300, Alexey Zaytsev wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Michael Buesch wrote: > > Besides that the bcm43xx driver is not broken. That's the whole reason > > this damn thread started at all. So it can't be broken. > > > Can't agree here. The bcm43xx driver used to work with 2.6.23 without requiring > any module magic. At the risk of prolonging things... :-( Isn't the fundamental problem here that the ssb driver claims the same PCI IDs as the bcm43xx driver? He have hit this same issue a number of times: 8139too vs. 8139cp, eepro vs. e100, sk98lin vs. skge, and I'm sure there are more. I admit that this situation is a bit more confusing, since the user is less likely to predict a conflict between bcm43xx and the ssb driver. This is especially true since the user isn't even selecting ssb directly, but is instead selecting the apparently unrelated b44. Still, the bcm43xx driver is not fundamentally damaged. This is fundamentally a "two drivers claiming the same PCI ID" issue, not a "you broke my driver" one. John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/